"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: >> By blocking sleep states we can address "system level latency" or "best case >> latency" but as far as I can see PM QoS does not address "worst case >> latency". > > I'm not sure what you mean by "worst case latency". Umm.. the usual concept. If latency is the time from stimulus to response, this time can vary based on context. One part of the context is the hardware state but there is also the system load. So for example the time from interrupt to display being updated is affected by hardware state but also system load. As far as I understand, current PM QoS latency requests addresses hardware state but do not account for possible resource contention, e.g. several latency sensitive clients (device drivers, tasks) competing for CPU. In this sense minimum CPU frequency requests would be similar. --Antti _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
